Jump to content

dayglo

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    1,558
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by dayglo

  1. If you have read the last few posts on my 'life back' thread you'll be aware of two things 1) I lost - I convinced the judge that I had suffered substantial damages (but not distress) but I failed to convince the judge that these were unwarranted and as such my case was dismissed. 2) It was only a raised eyebrow from the judge and a goodwill gesture from the Vodafone legal executive that spared me from having to pay their legal costs, it was too complicated to be heard as small claims track it could have cost me a fortune. I'm not saying whether you should or should not continue, that is a call for you to make but you should understand that I won't be around for help I'm afraid. I regret that I'm not able to offer help by PM either. Good luck with whatever you decide to do. DG.
  2. Thanks Shelter Pie. You remind me of an old friend I miss.
  3. when you said 1000 lines for you I thought it was party time!
  4. I know - the lobbying process is a lucrative market these days - firms pay good money to for 'time' with MPs I think her tongue was wedged in her cheek a little when she said it, in her summing up though she said "the burden of proof is on the claimant to PROVE that the processing is unwarranted and in her opinion I had not done that" Actually, when you press the ICO on this point, they mean it to encompass the whole of the credit industry, both lenders and credit reference agencies have a 'legitimate' business interest and in their opinion that outweighs, in most cases (not all) the legitimate interests of data subjects. Another interesting throwaway comment made by the judge was "I am not bound at all by anything the ICO has either said or published and I will make up my own mind in this area. Having said that and having read what the ICO has to say in this area, I don't see any justified reason for disagreeing with them in this case" I'm not going to go down that road, its laden with booby traps for the future. We all give our thoughts freely here - I'd be against developing a "oh no I lost but I'm sure the good folk at CAG will bail me out" mentality. We make our beds and we lie in 'em. Im glad you were entertained though - there were some funny moments! I again, thanks very much. I like my thinking being described as "top notch" - not sure Mrs DG would agree though!
  5. if you refer to me again as "gayglo" it'll be far worse than the embarassment corner!
  6. locked in a room with me for 3 days - I suggest you get some expensive therapy as quicky as possible Thank-you very much. How kind. yep - it probably didn't help me when early on during the hearing I let it slip that I wasn't sure exactly what, in this context, "unwarranted" meant. The judge, to be fair to her, said "neither did she as it isn't defined anywhere in the act" maybe, but please, and this is aimed more at other folk reading this rather you Duncan, please remember the following. 1) I lost - I understood the arguments pretty well in my opinion and I lost. 2) I came within inches of having to pay vodafone's legal costs. The judge said this was the most complicated case she'd heard in many years and the level of complexity meant it was not suitable for small claims track. If anyone else is thinking of following in these footsteps - be wary of your exposure to legal costs if you lose. Personally I regret ever taking this issue on, its cost me £220 in real money, proven a massive distraction in my personal life, and the sweat in the final half hour as the discussion moved towards paying costs was not pleasant. I know SB has had a better record in this sort of area but please tread carefully before taking cases like these in front of judges. Even hot foxy ones like I had!
  7. good evening voyager9. That particular post was before I learned about the two very different types of 'default' I've posted about this elsewhere but here is one post I made about the two distinct types of default here The first type is as defined in CCA (section 88 - i think) and is a prelude to further action such as debt collection agencies, demands for full repayment etc. The second type is the one that causes you harm and thats the ones that the lenders pass to the CRAs. Both types of default can exist independantly of each other. I've seen many CCA defaults that never made it to credit files and, like vodafone, many defaults on credit files that were never 'issued' under the CCA. That's why I didn't make more of this point.
  8. I did look at the "sensitive data" angle - I concluded it was a non-starter. As far as the DPA is concerned, financial data is not considered "sensitive"
  9. well, if you're gonna make this your first post in the thread, it appears to be a blinder. welcome onboard sir, a fine post. I may reply in more detail when i'm less... how shall we say, less "tired and emotional"
  10. nice angle, i promise this is true! at one point during the exhausting 2 and bit hours of the hearing, mr vodafone man said sometihng, and the judge said "this is an argument" - I so desperately wanted to say "no it isn't its just contradication!"
  11. no idea. Please continue that particular discussion point elsewhere and leave this for wallowing self pity!
  12. forgiven. But if it helps - section 14 DPA is your best bet to have 'inaccurate' personal data corrected.
  13. Cheers Martin, thanks for your comments. but just to be clear my claim was for a zero value. The judge accepted my valuation of damages and was happy to accept that as a result of the data processing by vodafone I had suffered disproportianally. (please forgive spelling, its late, i'm drunk and angry!) my failure was that i could not show that the damages were unwarranted. The judge also said, in her opinion, she could not see a way that anyone COULD show that the damages were unwarranted. she seemed genuinley sorry that she had to dismiss my claim. I took her at face value and she did with me.
  14. thanks all, the advice I'll give based on what i've learned today is this:- 1) vodafone are delighted that they can show that they can reject S10(1) notices by claiming the conditions described in Schedule 2 para 6 are met therefore they do not have to comply with any S.10(1) notice 2) the template notice appears to be in some ways inadequate in that it does not put forward specific reasons why the processing is unwarranted in any particular case. 3) I was lucky in that the judge appeared to 'relieve' me of the costs burden on the basis that my case appeared well prepared and my general behaviour in the court and that vodafone took the judges 'hint' that they should not pursue me for costs. This may not be the case for others, the judge said this was "one of the most complicated cases she'd heard" be careful out there!
  15. I'm still a bit on '****ed off' page but here is some more detail, if it helps others. 1) The Judge made reference to the fact that, in her opinion, the S.10(1) notice that I sent (SB's template one) did not fully comply with requirements of the DPA in that it does not give 'specific reasons' why I considered there to be substantial damages or distress and that they are unwarranted. By this she says that she would expect detailed arguments listing exactly how much the damages were (I only presented this information with the AQ as I thought this would be acceptable) 2) She agreed that Vodafone may have also responded inadequatly to the various notices within 21 days, but she suggested that both parties waiver that element of the issue as 'technicalities' and that the hearing should be heard on the basis of the positions of both parties as they are today. This was on the understanding that she would dismiss my notice as inadequate, I would put in a new one, Vodafone would respond adequatly and we would be back where we are now just a few hundred pounds worse off all round. 3) She agreed that although the CCA did not apply in this case, that I was right to consider that the spirit of the protection clauses for consumers should be applied and that she gave vodafone a bit of ticking off for picking and choosing which bits apply and which bits don't. 4) She agreed that my definition of 'substantial damages' could be considered in light of proportionality of the original default and she agreed that the penalty i was paying for the default was dispropotionally higher than the value of the default 5) However, she agreed with Vodafone in that it was nothing to do with vodafone what another lender chooses to do with the information on my credit file - Vodafone must make sure the data is accurate. The fact that my mortgage is higher as a result is nothing to do with vodafone. 6) The bottom line - the burden of proof is on the claimant to show that the damage/distress is substantial and unwarranted. She agreed i showed it was substantial but not that it was unwarranted. I'm going to go and have some beers later on.....
  16. Ok, to cut a long story short (I'm sure I'll post a bit more detail at some point in the future) I lost. I have no complaints about the court or judge. I was given ample opportunity to put forward my case as were Vodafone. But it came down to, as expected, Schedule 2 Paragraph 6 and whose 'legitimate interests' were greater. The judge agreed that I had shown that I had suffered substantial damages but I had not shown that it was unwarranted. The judge decided that the legitimate interests of the 'Credit Reference Agencies' (not just vodafone) outweighed my legitimate interests. In respect of time, The judge agreed with the ICO in that six years (for many reasons) WAS a reasonable length of time for a default to remain on file. The only upside was that Vodafone, when asked if they wished to apply for costs, declined - and the Judge suggested that was the right answer! there were loads of nice words from the judge regarding my handling of the claim etc... but ultimately she dismissed my claim. Hey ho. p.s. thanks to Mr. Aardvark for coming along to provide support etc. Very much appreciated.
  17. thanks ian. The only bottles that are going are the ones wich contain intoxicating liquor, and they're going pretty fast it is going to boil down to the following issues as far as I can tell :- 1) have Vodafone given adequate 'justified' reasons for not complying with my S.10(1) Notice within the 21 days they were given? I say, not - they say yes. 2) Do the court agree with me that 6 years in an un-reasonable length of time to process data after the ending of a contract or do they agree with Vodafone and the ICO who say that 6 years is standard practice and a reasonable length of time 3) In terms of Schedule 2, para 6 - whose legitimate interest is greater? my legitimate interests or Vodafone's? 4) will there be any procedural confusion regarding everyones role in this - some courts appear to think that the CRAs are processing the data as opposed to the credit supplier 5) will I be wearing my lucky pants?
  18. un1boy - i hope the questions are this easy on monday!
  19. cheers. I'm as prepared as far as its possible to be. I have three copies of professionally printed and bound, indexed and cross-referenced files. Mr Aardark is coming over tonight for some final preparation and 'what-if' considerations. Obviously don't want to say too much here, keep powder dry etc... but providing the hearing is fair and I get the chance to put my case across calmly - I can do no more than my best. I could not have prepared any more than I have done, so lets wait and see. The hearing is at 2pm and scheduled for 2 hours.
  20. well, its come to this then. The court hearing is on Monday. I'll let you know what happens. Thanks.
×
×
  • Create New...